Oh look, more anti-free speech from Vance.

[frigidweirdo]

Not true. It applies to public and private speech.

He is not protected from the consequences of his speech, however.

Nope.

When acting as the Presidency, they cannot be convicted of "civilian crimes". Because they're acting as the Presidency.

Only when they're doing something that is not acting as the Presidency, can they be considered a civilian, and therefore subject to civil law.

The ONLY way he can he punished, is by Congress through impeachment, if he's acting as the Presidency.

When speaking publicly, that's acting as the Presidency.

The Supreme Court recently ruled on this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope.

When acting as the Presidency, they cannot be convicted of "civilian crimes". Because they're acting as the Presidency.

Yes, but they can be tried when they leave office.

 

[Marener]

I see. But that's pure speculation at this point.

More than speculation since we are able to read the Dobbs decision.

The fundamental part of Dobbs is that the constitution doesn’t protect anything that isn’t specifically enumerated and isn’t a fundamental part of American history.

On that basis, it would be perfectly consistent to allow states to make it illegal to engage in homosexual acts.

That’s bad news for anyone who is gay and lives in Texas.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope.

When acting as the Presidency, they cannot be convicted of "civilian crimes". Because they're acting as the Presidency.

Only when they're doing something that is not acting as the Presidency, can they be considered a civilian, and therefore subject to civil law.

The ONLY way he can he punished, is by Congress through impeachment, if he's acting as the Presidency.

When speaking publicly, that's acting as the Presidency.

The Supreme Court recently ruled on this.

May I ask what you're trying to get at?

 

[TemplarKormac]

More than speculation since we are able to read the Dobbs decision.

The fundamental part of Dobbs is that the constitution doesn’t protect anything that isn’t specifically enumerated and isn’t a fundamental part of American history.

On that basis, it would be perfectly consistent to allow states to make it illegal to engage in homosexual acts.

That’s bad news for anyone who is gay and lives in Texas.

Sigh. This is a slippery slope, and I don't have the right shoes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, but they can be tried when they leave office.

Nope, the Supreme Court ruled that if they do something AS THE PRESIDENCY, they cannot be prosecuted at any time.

 

[frigidweirdo]

May I ask what you're trying to get at?

My point is that Vance, when speaking as the Presidency, should not be talking about whether people should fire people for saying things.

It's not his job.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope, the Supreme Court ruled that if they do something AS THE PRESIDENCY, they cannot be prosecuted at any time.

Are you sure? It sounds like the presidency only shields them from prosecution. Leaving the office may leave them culpable for it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

My point is that Vance, when speaking as the Presidency, should not be talking about whether people should fire people for saying things.

It's not his job.

He's still entitled to an opinion

 

[TemplarKormac]

My point is that Vance, when speaking as the Presidency, should not be talking about whether people should fire people for saying things.

It's not his job.

I see.

But he can. It's only words. He can't compel anyone to fire anyone else. If he really wants, he can introduce a bill to Congress via a congressman/woman willing to introduce it. Otherwise, it's just bluster.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you sure? It sounds like the presidency only shields them from prosecution. Leaving the office may leave them culpable for it.

Trump v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

" presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" "

"with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch"

" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, holding that presidents "may not be prosecuted for exercising [core constitutional powers]" granted under the Article II of the United States Constitution, such as commanding the military, issuing pardons, vetoing legislation, overseeing foreign relations, managing immigration, and appointing judges."

Essentially, with this ruling, you'd find it very difficult to say that a President, or VP, can be prosecuted for saying anything that is considered a part of their Presidency.

The only way it might be, is if Congress feels it has the powers and they're not Presidential powers.

How, it'd take a lot of effort to reach that point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see.

But he can. It's only words. He can't compel anyone to fire anyone else. If he really wants, he can introduce a bill to Congress via a congressman/woman willing to introduce it. Otherwise, it's just bluster.

But it's not just words, is it?

It's pushing the US closer and closer to a point where all hell breaks loose.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Essentially the right want to control speech if they don't like it, and make it free if they do. Kind of fascist to me.

They deplored cancel culture until they fell in love with it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Trump v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

" presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" "

"with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch"

" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, holding that presidents "may not be prosecuted for exercising [core constitutional powers]" granted under the Article II of the United States Constitution, such as commanding the military, issuing pardons, vetoing legislation, overseeing foreign relations, managing immigration, and appointing judges."

Essentially, with this ruling, you'd find it very difficult to say that a President, or VP, can be prosecuted for saying anything that is considered a part of their Presidency.

The only way it might be, is if Congress feels it has the powers and they're not Presidential powers.

How, it'd take a lot of effort to reach that point.

Fair enough. Mea culpa.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But it's not just words, is it?

It's pushing the US closer and closer to a point where all hell breaks loose.

But who pushed first?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

They deplored cancel culture until they fell in love with it.

They? Really, they?

 

[Lisa558]

Some people are pretending that there isn’t a significant anti-gay marriage movement. There is.

So what? Many people are opposed, and they are entitled to express their opinions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They deplored cancel culture until they fell in love with it.

Revenge:

Nobody's immune to wanting it or seeking it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They deplored cancel culture until they fell in love with it.

Both sides will do this. Both sides will try and stop the other from saying things, and then complain when they're being stopped from saying things.

The US is falling into a pit of crazy insanity.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But who pushed first?

The dinosaur pushed first. (As in, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, it was the dinosaur that came first (as in, they had eggs))

Doesn't matter who pushed first. The US in spiralling out of control. Unless the political system changes, the US is doomed.